FOR THE CHILDREN!!! Utah Gov. signs laws requiring age verification on Social Media

[Lanrick]

Summary

Utah's Govenor Cox has signed 2 bills (HB311, SB152) that require all social media platforms to verify the age of any Utah resident and add restrictions to anyone under the age of 18. There is a requirement that anyone under the age of 18 will not be allowed to view social media during the hours of 10:30 PM and 6:30 PM. This is progression in the current debate of Social Media's role in society.

 

Quotes

Quote

The new Utah laws — H.B. 311 and S.B. 152 — require that social media companies verify the age of any Utah resident who makes a social media profile and get parental consent for any minor who wishes to make a profile. They also forces social media companies to allow parents to access posts and messages from their child’s account.

The laws also prohibit social media companies from displaying ads to minors, showing minor accounts in search results, collecting information about minors, targeting or suggesting content to minors, or knowingly integrating addictive technologies into social media apps used by minors. They also impose a curfew on the use of social media for minors, locking them out of their social media accounts between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. based on the location of a user’s device, unless adjusted with the consent of a parent. 

Utah’s laws come amid ongoing debates about the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, a link that is widely theorized but remains the subject of academic study. Mental health issues among young people have been labeled a crisis, with particular concerns about the mental health of young women.

Quote

Passed by the Legislature earlier this month, SB152 and HB311 are touted by lawmakers as necessary to counter the alleged harms social media platforms enact on teenagers. But the bills have drawn strong pushback from industry groups and have raised concerns about freedom of speech and privacy.

Cox and legislative leaders have pointed to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report showing that 57% of teen girls persistently felt sad or hopeless in 2021, and nearly 1 in 3 considered suicide.

"I'm so proud of the great work that you all were able to accomplish together with your colleagues in the Legislature," Cox told lawmakers during a ceremonial signing of the bills Thursday. "These are first-of-their-kind bills in the United States, and that's huge that Utah is leading out on this effort."

My thoughts

As a resident of Utah, I feel that this is an invasion of my privacy and encroaching into our personal lives. I understand the issue of mental health in children but there are better ways in addressing it than outright banning it.

 

Sources

NBC News

KSL News

[jaslion]

Oh this is quite nice.

 

The problem won't go away and self control is very hard when social media is engineered to break that. So it being outright banned during those hours for underage users is great.

[tkitch]

oh yeah, this'll work.

 

It's called VPN, or any number of other ways to get around it.  

Problem solved.

[Lanrick]

6 minutes ago, tkitch said:

oh yeah, this'll work.

 

It's called VPN, or any number of other ways to get around it.  

Problem solved.

Totally not speaking from experience, kids will figure a way to bypass it lol

[Soundbored]

19 hours ago, The_Tuba_Titan said:

Totally not speaking from experience, kids will figure a way to bypass it lol

Actually they might not be, the fake licenses or ID's come to mind. But aside from that, not too sure what that would entail.

[Lurick]

It's a first amendment violation plain and simple. Children still have 1A rights too.

[AnonymousGuy]

"Check this box if you live in Utah"

 

hmmm I guess everyone just decided to move from Utah to Alaska.

[Mark Kaine]

17 minutes ago, Lurick said:

It's a first amendment violation plain and simple. Children still have 1A rights too.

yeah so which point does it violate exactly?  freedom of speech? that's still allowed *after age verification* (imo) but im curious what you think violates it exactly and why, im not sure how or why that would violate anything  

 

 

ps: actually isn't there already a law regarding children posting on forums and such ? (minimum 13y afaik)

[Brooksie359]

Honestly I do not think this is all that bad. I mean if you look at the statistics social media has a huge detrimental effect on children to the point where they really shouldn't be on social media. Do I think this should be a parenting decision? I am not too sure as we do have laws against other harmful things like tobacco and alcohol which we restrict from those of younger ages from having so not sure how this is much different based on just how mad social media is for children. 

[Brooksie359]

22 minutes ago, Lurick said:

It's a first amendment violation plain and simple. Children still have 1A rights too.

You can be banned from Twitter or other social media websites and it doesn't violate the first amendment. Not having access to social media is not a violation of the first amendment. If it was then there would be huge ramifications for social media websites as they wouldn't be able to moderate their platforms in any way unless something illegal was said that do not fall under free speech like threats or liable. 

[Lurick]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can be banned from Twitter or other social media websites and it doesn't violate the first amendment. Not having access to social media is not a violation of the first amendment. If it was then there would be huge ramifications for social media websites as they wouldn't be able to moderate their platforms in any way unless something illegal was said that do not fall under free speech like threats or liable. 

Requiring parental consent for using social media violates minors’ First Amendment
rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that government regulation of access to social
media implicates the First Amendment: “to foreclose access to social media is to prevent the
user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” 2 Yet that is
precisely what these bills do: any Utahn under the age of 18 would be precluded by default
from participating on a social media platform.

 

Minors possess significant First Amendment rights, “and only in relatively narrow and well-
defined circumstances may the government bar public dissemination of protected materials
to them.”3 These narrow circumstances concern primarily specific material deemed obscene
as to minors.4 No court has ever ratified the notion that minors may be excluded from an
entire forum for expression regardless of its content. Indeed, there is nothing “narrow” at all
about prohibiting minors from using social media wholesale.

 

https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreedom-Letter-to-Gov.-Spencer-Cox-2.16.23.pdf

[Lurick]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah so which point does it violate exactly?  freedom of speech? that's still allowed *after age verification* (imo) but im curious what you think violates it exactly and why, im not sure how or why that would violate anything  

 

 

ps: actually isn't there already a law regarding children posting on forums and such ? (minimum 13y afaik)

TOS =/= a law

See above for a better explanation as to why and how it violates the first amendment.

[Lurick]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can be banned from Twitter or other social media websites and it doesn't violate the first amendment. Not having access to social media is not a violation of the first amendment. If it was then there would be huge ramifications for social media websites as they wouldn't be able to moderate their platforms in any way unless something illegal was said that do not fall under free speech like threats or liable. 

THE GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW

Banning someone from social media as a consequence of their actions for breaking the terms of service and rules of the platform is not the result of the government making a law. Making a law that clearly abridges the freedom of speech IS a violation of the first amendment.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

THE GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW

Banning someone from social media as a consequence of their actions for breaking the terms of service and rules of the platform is not the result of the government making a law. Making a law that clearly abridges the freedom of speech IS a violation of the first amendment.

But we ales have laws in place banning those under the age of 13 from using social media....

You write in twich chat that you are 13 or younger and you get banned due to this law and can no longer type in chat. Is that a violation then? Anyways I am probably going to agree to disagree as this topic seems a bit to political and will probably be locked for good reason. I mean I get where you are coming from but I also think that children's health is very important and this seems like it would be good for them imo. 

[starsmine]

54 minutes ago, Lurick said:

It's a first amendment violation plain and simple. Children still have 1A rights too.

Generally, no they dont. 

As pointed out, we Coppa exists already, and it is perhaps not strong enough, as much as it annoyed me back when I played Neopets when I was 11. A guardian needs to fill out forums to allow their dependents under 13 to have data collected on them in these ways. basiclly saying "I'm responsible for what info my child shares now".

Violating Coppa gets you pretty hefty fines

EU has a similar law that goes to 16 (aka why many online games that are international will just have a basic rule of 16 so they dont have different rules for different regions, like valorant, so if you find someone under 16, report them). Next time you hear a 11 year old in your cod game, report them as its doubtful the parent has faxed xbox live a form allowing it, so the account is breaking TOS as its a Coppa Violation for them.

There has been a bipartisan push at the federal level to expand Coppa to 15.

The kids are dumbasses, even if they lie about being in Utah, they will then go and say in game, or on social media where they are... Utah, or even better their city. Proving why Coppa is a thing.

Honestly, expanding it to 18 is a bit much. I dont personally feel like it needs to be more then 14

[Brooksie359]

21 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Generally, no they dont. 

As pointed out, we Coppa exists already, and it is perhaps not strong enough, as much as it annoyed me back when I played Neopets when I was 11. A guardian needs to fill out forums to allow their dependents under 13 to have data collected on them in these ways. basiclly saying "I'm responsible for what info my child shares now".

Violating Coppa gets you pretty hefty fines

EU has a similar law that goes to 16 (aka why many online games that are international will just have a basic rule of 16 so they dont have different rules for different regions, like valorant, so if you find someone under 16, report them). Next time you hear a 11 year old in your cod game, report them as its doubtful the parent has faxed xbox live a form allowing it, so the account is breaking TOS as its a Coppa Violation for them.

There has been a bipartisan push at the federal level to expand Coppa to 15.

The kids are dumbasses, even if they lie about being in Utah, they will then go and say in game, or on social media where they are... Utah, or even better their city. Proving why Coppa is a thing.

Honestly, expanding it to 18 is a bit much. I dont personally feel like it needs to be more then 14

I think the stats support that if you started using social media at 15 or above you are much less likely to have mental health issues than those who had it before 15 so I think 15 would be ok. I still think social media does way more harm than good and can't really see a reason for allowing children to use it at all but I guess so are alot of things like unhealthy foods and other potential physical and mental health hazards. 

[Lanrick]

40 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Generally, no they dont. 

As pointed out, we Coppa exists already, and it is perhaps not strong enough, as much as it annoyed me back when I played Neopets when I was 11. A guardian needs to fill out forums to allow their dependents under 13 to have data collected on them in these ways. basiclly saying "I'm responsible for what info my child shares now".

Violating Coppa gets you pretty hefty fines

EU has a similar law that goes to 16 (aka why many online games that are international will just have a basic rule of 16 so they dont have different rules for different regions, like valorant, so if you find someone under 16, report them). Next time you hear a 11 year old in your cod game, report them as its doubtful the parent has faxed xbox live a form allowing it, so the account is breaking TOS as its a Coppa Violation for them.

There has been a bipartisan push at the federal level to expand Coppa to 15.

The kids are dumbasses, even if they lie about being in Utah, they will then go and say in game, or on social media where they are... Utah, or even better their city. Proving why Coppa is a thing.

Honestly, expanding it to 18 is a bit much. I dont personally feel like it needs to be more then 14

Technically, Coppa does allow consent from parents. YouTuber, Legal Eagle, did a video on the topic and he explains it in depth. (for those that need a refresher)

 

 

[starsmine]

3 minutes ago, The_Tuba_Titan said:

Technically, Coppa does allow consent from parents. YouTuber, Legal Eagle, did a video on the topic and he explains it in depth. (for those that need a refresher)

 

 

I am lost to your point. I said that... twice.

[Arika]

i approve of the sentiment...but knowing government, i won't approve of the method.

[StDragon]

6 hours ago, Lurick said:

THE GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW

Banning someone from social media as a consequence of their actions for breaking the terms of service and rules of the platform is not the result of the government making a law. Making a law that clearly abridges the freedom of speech IS a violation of the first amendment.

The 1st amendment doesn't grant the right to any platform. You can't just walk right into a congressional session just because you have a right to speak your mind.

In other words, its one thing to have access to a platform, but told you cant hold opinions about your own government or the officials in office. However it's quite another matter entirely to not be given access to an entire platform to begin with.

[suicidalfranco]

Good, social media are a cancer to society

[ravenshrike]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:06 PM, The_Tuba_Titan said:

As a resident of Utah, I feel that this is an invasion of my privacy and encroaching into our personal lives. I understand the issue of mental health in children but there are better ways in addressing it than outright banning it.

 

Good thing it's not an outright ban then.

[Donut417]

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can be banned from Twitter or other social media websites and it doesn't violate the first amendment. Not having access to social media is not a violation of the first amendment. If it was then there would be huge ramifications for social media websites as they wouldn't be able to moderate their platforms in any way unless something illegal was said that do not fall under free speech like threats or liable. 

There is a huge difference when a corporation bans you from their platform vs the government. Firstly the government is bound to the rules of the United States Constitution, as this is a state government they are bound to their own constitution as well. Corporations are not bound to the constitution and can make rules of how their platform can be used. 

 

So the state of Utah banning people from using the platform could very well be a constitutional issue and likely will be brought before the supreme court at some point. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

There is a huge difference when a corporation bans you from their platform vs the government. Firstly the government is bound to the rules of the United States Constitution, as this is a state government they are bound to their own constitution as well. Corporations are not bound to the constitution and can make rules of how their platform can be used. 

 

So the state of Utah banning people from using the platform could very well be a constitutional issue and likely will be brought before the supreme court at some point. 

Basically all the government is doing is limiting their use to what? 3 hours a day?,  that's not a complete ban, which is what it would have to be before you could even entertain the idea that a constitutional right has been breached.

 

In the meantime, these kids might actually survive the first part of their mental development years and grow to be reasonable people who see the world for what it is, rather than what social media brainwashes people to think it is.

[ToboRobot]

Good. 

IMO Social Media should have a cancer warning label.